If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes I would, it is a violation of the 1st amendment, it is not allowing the freedom of religion.

It is sad that to be a citizen in a country that forces you to buy product to remain a citizen in good standing, no other industrialized country forces that burden on its people. We have lost a huge freedom.

There you have it. A fictional entity, an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law...without consciences, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, desires...artificial creatures of the state -- can, to some conservatives -

worship God, Allah, Jehovah, Olodumare, Braham, Vishnu, etc...

Now, a souless, insentient creation can have what - up until this time in history, what was only known to exist in humans.

Can you explain why the New York Times has freedom of speech if corporations do not have rights. Explain why Obama admitted that churches, which are nothing but corporations, have religious rights not to provide birth control if corporations do not have rights. Explain why you always ignore facts when it suits your purpose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't freedom to "force" someone else to pay for something. It is the company's obligation to its employees because they have the means to do so. Rich fucks just don't want to spend any money on their employees and are using "religious freedom" as a flimsy excuse to get away with it.

Hobby Lobby is NOT a church. "God" is not within their walls. It is a business. Businesses are not churches, but churches are businesses. If Hobby Lobby wins and corporations have religious freedom like churches, then will corporations be taxed like churches?

Oh, okay. So if I win the lottery, I'm obligated to purchase health insurance for some wino sleeping in the overpass because I have the means to do so? I don't fucking think so. Please wrap your tiny mind around the idea that no one has an obligation to do ANYTHING for you, and the more you talk, the less DESIRE they have to do so.

You might also consider that nothing in the Constitution says, ". . . free exercise thereof . . . unless you happen to be rich and KNB envies you because he's too shit-poor and worthless to afford his own beer, in which case you have no rights except to shut up and pay him to stand around picking his nose".

Hobby Lobby doesn't have to be a church, because the only people who think the First Amendment applies only to churches are ignorant fuckstains like you who are challenged by reading "Cat in the Hat". In fact, I really hope I'm not being to articulate for you to understand right now. I'd hate for any of the contempt you create to be missed.

Then why did the Supreme Court decide that states couild outlaw polygamy? The Mormons argued, accurately, that polygamy was part of their religion.

Did the Court wrongly decide that case? Should Mormon polygamous marriages be required to be legal and recognized?

For the same reason the decided that states could require discrimination, they were wrong.

Either that, or you are wrong that marriage is a fundamental right.

Your choice.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So if I think the mininum wage, social security withholding, environmental regs and safety regs violate my free-market-cult religious beliefs, can my business can opt out of those as well?

If not, why the wild hypocritical double standards?

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religious sects, and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

You haven't a clue. When 2.2 billion people worship Christianity, I'd say that's a broad enough basis. Christianity also does not need to be accepted by other non-Christian religious sects in order to practice, and it does meet the standards of a religious organization, seeing as how its been in existence for over 2000 years. Christianity is also widely accepted seeing as how almost a quarter of the people on this planet believe in it. I'm not sure what you're trying to hit at, but you are woefully uninformed about my faith, whoever you are.

Why are you accusing me of being clueless but your tirade supports my side of the stance??

What am I missing here?? I think you have made explicit what I made implicit ....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes I would, it is a violation of the 1st amendment, it is not allowing the freedom of religion.

It is sad that to be a citizen in a country that forces you to buy product to remain a citizen in good standing, no other industrialized country forces that burden on its people. We have lost a huge freedom.

You don't think any of your tax dollars are used to buy anything? Are you fucking nuts?

The Supreme Court has said that no one has a say over the money the government steals from them.

Funny thing though, they have never once ruled that you can be forced to spend your money on something just because the government says so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't think any of your tax dollars are used to buy anything? Are you fucking nuts?

Taxes are much different, it is a way to run the government, last I look health care is a private industry regulated by the government. But the government is forcing us to buy from a private company and allows us no choice and we pay. I had a health care plan that worked for me, now I pay more for stuff I don't want or need. It is an assault on our freedoms.

For the first 50 years or so of our country - every able-bodied free white man was forced to purchase not just one product, but many.

And be made available to parade with such products, two to three times a years, or face fines or jail.

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then why did the Supreme Court decide that states couild outlaw polygamy? The Mormons argued, accurately, that polygamy was part of their religion.

Did the Court wrongly decide that case? Should Mormon polygamous marriages be required to be legal and recognized?

What was the SCOTUS case that decided the states could outlaw polygamy?

Reynolds v. United States

One problem with your case, it doesn't say that a state can make polygamy illegal, it says the feds can.

Nice attempt at obfuscation though.

 

[hangover]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Cons in the government are trying to force their beliefs on us. Birth control, abortion, women's rights, immigration, taxes, pentagon spending, religious beliefs, and on and on....And then they say, "it's the liberals that are doing it."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reynolds v. United States

if gay marriage becomes the law of the land via SCOTUS, then Reynolds will be overturned on appeal because there will be no legal argument that can be made against polygamy based on the gay marriage precedent of equal rights.

No, it won't, Oliver Wendall.

I bet you were one of the people that said no one was talking about same sex marriage 10 years ago when California was considering allowing same sex civil unions, now you want them to be mandatory even if the states disagree. My guess is that in 5 years you will be screaming that states cannot ban polygamous marriages.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are the only person on the planet that believes in your religion it is no less valid, legally, than Catholicism or Islam.

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

Dear Dr: You are right to point out how the system works now:
* only recognized or popular views get help to defend and win their cases
like Atheists winning lawsuits to remove crosses from public buildings
or gay couples winning suits against bakers that decline to attend their weddings
* and in general, the legal system only defends rights of people
-- who have ability and resources and can find a lawyer to defend their cases
-- who WIN their cases, so if you don't you can still lose "inalienable rights" that depend on "suing" and "winning" in order to regain rights you weren't ever supposed to lose

you are pointing out what is WRONG with our system

you may be right, that this is how it works in practice,
but that doesn't mean it is accurate, constitutional or fair.

If you ask me, from what I've seen, I would say the whole legal system
is unconstitutional for denying equal protection of the law; obstructing
freedom of speech, freedom of the press and right to petition by
monopolizing the process; and violating religious free exercise by not compelling consensus decisions to prevent anyone's beliefs about justice from being violated, excluded, or discriminated against.

For your limited criteria on religions,
for either the govt or the current MONOPOLIZED system of legal access and precedence
to 'determine' what is and what is not a protected religious belief or defense
is abusing govt to regulate religion, and to discriminate against people on the basis of religion or creed.

The only way I see around this is to mediate all conflicts so everyone's
beliefs and views are equally included and protected by law.

Until we set up a system to do that, there is constant risk or violations going on unchecked where people suffer losses and damages to their "inalienable rights" because of lack of consensus where somebody's beliefs got violated by someone else imposing on them.

Every murder, rape or robbery that happens, every instance of crime, abuse or corruption that occurs is someone's beliefs about justice getting violated.

The cure for all these violations is teaching and agreeing to respect the CONSENT of all people equally, so we can resolve all conflicts BEFORE they escalate to civil violations, crime or abuse.

That is why this problem has not been solved yet.
We all live with the "status quo" that people are going to bully each other, and violate each other's rights by imposing on each other, so we keep letting this happen.

We would have to change the way we live, on all levels,
if we were going to stop "religious discrimination" about whose beliefs
count and which ones don't. We violate this every day, so that is why our govt is not perfect either, and the decisions are arbitrary, depending on what is politically popular.

To be perfectly consistent, we would have to respect ALL beliefs as someone's CONSENT.
In order to return to the founding concept that govt authority is derived from CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. Any objections on any grounds would have to be taken into consideration, as is done in mediation. That is why I believe in consensus on law as the standard of govt.

To stop all this "arbitrary nonsense" as to what is and what is not enforced, based on one group's beliefs over another, which is technically NOT Constitutional equal protection.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

I think you're the one needing help, being you're saying religious rights should be determined by popularity.

Are you upset that he spelled out your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you are the only person on the planet that believes in your religion it is no less valid, legally, than Catholicism or Islam.

I know exactly what I am talking about, just for grins and chuckles let me offer another bite off the apple before I defend my last sentiment.

The next argument that I will be making is "Time is of the essence" ...

I have my arguments ready, how about you??
Hint, needs to relate specifically to this issue ...

You have idiotic arguments ready? Why am I not surprised? Do you operate under the delusion that the mere fact that you claim to have an argument somehow makes your argument valid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Cons in the government are trying to force their beliefs on us. Birth control, abortion, women's rights, immigration, taxes, pentagon spending, religious beliefs, and on and on....And then they say, "it's the liberals that are doing it."

The sad part is that you actually believe that.

 

[paperview]

Taxes are much different, it is a way to run the government, last I look health care is a private industry regulated by the government. But the government is forcing us to buy from a private company and allows us no choice and we pay. I had a health care plan that worked for me, now I pay more for stuff I don't want or need. It is an assault on our freedoms.

For the first 50 years or so of our country - every able-bodied free white man was forced to purchase not just one product, but many.

And be made available to parade with such products, two to three times a years, or face fines or jail.

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Cons in the government are trying to force their beliefs on us. Birth control, abortion, women's rights, immigration, taxes, pentagon spending, religious beliefs, and on and on....And then they say, "it's the liberals that are doing it."

I agree that both sides are doing this.
Two wrongs don't make it right.

Why not call for a Constitutional convention and resolution
to separate Party agenda as "political religions" and keep
both out of govt and public policy? Only stick to legislation
and government programs where ALL SIDES AGREE
represent the WHOLE of the American public.

All other programs and policies can be run and funded
SEPARATELY by party membership, structure, elections and
directing taxes through separate collection and restitution
programs for govt abuses and violations per PARTY.

Why not take the BILLIONS Of dollars spent on campaigns
and invest that directly into Party agenda and solutions by voluntary
contribution and participation? And keep all this partisan agenda OUT OF GOVT.

 

[emilynghiem]

For the first 50 years or so of our country - every able-bodied free white man was forced to purchase not just one product, but many.

And be made available to parade with such products, two to three times a years, or face fines or jail.

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

??? Paperview are you acknowledging and endorsing the founding culture in America
which included "using slave labor as legal property" to build this country?
Are you okay with that also?

If it is okay for people to use courts to demand that govt enforce laws of slavery
to RETURN runaway or stolen slaves as legal property of their owners,

What's wrong with using courts to demand that govt
RETURN the religious liberty and freedoms that were supposed
to be "inalienable" rights under Constitutional laws?

If certainly government laws were enforced to demand return of SLAVES,
when that was clearly a violation of human equality,
what is wrong with RETURNING "religious liberty" which INCLUDES the EQUAL
right of employees to exercise their freedoms outside these restrictive mandates?

 

[paperview]

For the first 50 years or so of our country - every able-bodied free white man was forced to purchase not just one product, but many.

And be made available to parade with such products, two to three times a years, or face fines or jail.

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

To add to the above, the early Congress, in order to codify the Militia laws, could have purchased the required items (i.e. muskets, rifles, bayonets, belts, a cartridge box, bullets, etc...) they insisted all able bodied white men must obtain these items -- and taxed them.

In addition, The very FIRST Congress, in 1790, passed a bill that required ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. That bill was signed by George Washington. Mandated insurance coverage. Then later, in 1798, they expanded the health coverage mandate, requiring every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed.

I'll add the above insurance mandate was exercised under the Commerce Clause.

An example of the Federal gov't mandating insurance coverage.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Not exactly, you would need to show that your religion has a broad basis, is widely accepted and recognized by other religions sects. and meets all the requirements for a non profit tax exempt religious organization according to government regulations.

It is not like the Catholics, Baptist, Methodist, etc, etc or not readily recognized as run of the mill religions accepted by most reasonable and prudent members of society.

Now I am not sure your free market cult qualifies for the accepted meaning of a religious sect ...

That wasn't just a rhetorical question anyway, was it?? You seriously need help with the reasoning behind this??

I think you're the one needing help, being you're saying religious rights should be determined by popularity.

I will take your advice with the same validity as the rest of your fodder, but I appreciate the opinion, even as I am sure YOU are NOT QUALIFIED TO make that call.

Spit, sputter, deflect, defend, stumble along blindly ... comprehension is going to be a huge issue around here ... I can tell already.

So which came first the chicken or the egg?? Troll fodder?? No let's make it a little more relevant to this specific conversation. Which came first the christian religion or the ACA??

When you look at this over a time weighted span you see that religions that go against abortion and fetus killing is a lot older than the ACA. So for Johnny-Come-Lately to come in and decide that he will over ride religious beliefs that have been around for centuries violates so many tenets that it if it were not so sad it would be laughable!!

Have a little perspective, the a fore mentioned religion was what created in your imagination to meet a specific requirement(ie.. you built your religion against things that already existed).

In the real world case these religious factions were established long before your Obummbler and his cronies came along.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the first 50 years or so of our country - every able-bodied free white man was forced to purchase not just one product, but many.

And be made available to parade with such products, two to three times a years, or face fines or jail.

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

Anything in there about them having to buy them?

Didn't think so.

Are you aware that muskets were often made by the local blacksmith? Or that ammo was not interchangeable because rifles rarely had the same bore? I thought you were the history buff, do you only study history that supports your position?

Just a thought, if everyone was required to won a gun, what does that do to the argument that no one should be allowed to own a gun?

 

[emilynghiem]

Less than 25 signatures need on this petition to reach 10,000 mark.

Please sign and share with others:

We Support Hobby Lobby - Sign the Petition


P.S. I am a prochoice progessive Democrat, who believes the Singlepayer and Right to Health Care advocates should set up a program through the Democrat Party, not the federal govt.

"Right to Health Care" is a political belief as is "Right to Life" and both should be equally protected by law without discrimination. Our govt should remain neutral with political beliefs as with religious beliefs, and not be abused to impose partisan agenda, on either side! Govt should support consensus decisions that include and protect all views equally. The govt should never take sides in disputes over "beliefs" or it discriminates against the people of opposing beliefs. All conflicts should be resolved, so there is an agreement on policy, or else people should agree to separate policies and quit imposing on each other. Govt should never be abused to impose one view over another in cases of religious disputes, or it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They were not required to purchase a fucking thing, all they had to do was have one. They were perfectly free to steal it, borrow it from a friend, receive it as a gift, or even make it in their barn.

"free to steal it."



"Make it in their barn..."

This is what all every able-bodied free white men (between 18 - 45* -with a few exemptions) had to be prepared to show up with a number of times a year, and be prepared to parade with them -- or be fined or jailed.

"...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."


Yes, this was the government for some 50 years after our founding forcing citizens to provide themselves with a wide array of materials.

No, "stealing them" wasn't an option.

To add to the above, the early Congress, in order to codify the Militia laws, could have purchased the required items (i.e. muskets, rifles, bayonets, belts, a cartridge box, bullets, etc...) they insisted all able bodied white men must obtain these items -- and taxed them.

In addition, The very FIRST Congress, in 1790, passed a bill that required ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen. That bill was signed by George Washington. Mandated insurance coverage. Then later, in 1798, they expanded the health coverage mandate, requiring every ship owner or master coming into a port to pay 20 cents per seaman for every month each worker had been employed.

I'll add the above insurance mandate was exercised under the Commerce Clause.

An example of the Federal gov't mandating insurance coverage.

Still don't have a point, what a surprise.